[eDebate] In Defense of IPR

Matt Moore matt_moore85
Wed Apr 12 11:10:14 CDT 2006


>B. Lack of Congruence in Harm Areas ? the "Single but not too Single" Rant.
>The only thing connecting an abortion debate and a free speech debate
>together is the Supreme Court "overturn/overrule" clause. This means many
>teams will, especially at the beginning of the year, will stick to this
>congruence when writing their negative strategy. This means the State 
>Courts
>CP or the 9-0 CP or the Avoidance Cannon CP or the Congress CP will be run
>because that is the only thing (other than perhaps CLS) that ties the topic
>together. For Property Rights, you can always say property rights are bad,
>or that increasing them has a bad signal world wide, or other generic
>positions about the HARMS and not the ACTOR.

This argument is  nonstarter for the neg. Having generic counterplan ground 
is always going to be better than having generic harm ground. There are a 
few problems with your argument here:
1. Congruence on the negative is inevitable. Most people started this year 
with an engagement cp and last year most started with a version of the 
voluntary cp. It is just easier to prepare and mroe stratgic. No matter what 
the IPR topic ends up saying, you can bet teams will do the same.
2. The topic committee would rather have a mechanism than a harm area. 
Nearly all the members at the meeting expressed this opinion. And given the 
topic process over the past few years it is almost certain that the first 
thing the committee will do is find the mechanism(s) that best provide for 
negative ground.
3. The lack of congruence in the harm area is an issue, but it is not like 
there is a lot of congruence in the property rights bad ground. IPR for 
music is either good or bad for different reasons than say big pharm. Your 
generic property rights bad cards will not get you as far in those debates. 
The congruence issue will be solved by limiting the scope of the topic. In 
the past few years, the only topic that congruence was a real issue on was 
Europe. The thing that made the topic so difficult was that there was not a 
good generic mechanism to solve the difference between the areas.
4. All the "illigitimate" counterplans you list later are inevitable on any 
topic. There is nothing you can do to write them out of a topic. It is like 
saying we should write a topic that prevents teams from not defending the 
resolution.
Matt






More information about the Mailman mailing list